MartinC wrote:Mark R wrote:.......................The OP is arguing that populating the streets with millions and millions of diesel engines represented important work to tackle CO2 problem.....................
Unfortunately you've made this up, maybe my post wasn't clear enough. My point was that the switch to diesel was another bandwagon created to avoid the UK having to tackle it's car problem i.e. a technical palliative (or a hypocritical obfuscation if you prefer) to a cultural problem. It's preceded by previous bandwagons of the same nature and now followed by this latest one. The previous ones may have done some good but any benefit has been consumed by increased use. This latest one is the same but with one important difference - it undoes some of the benefit of the preceding ones.
Your view may be that the most important issue is your local air quality and that a solution must be found (at whatever cost to everyone else) that doesn't involve your urban neighbours changing their lifestyle preferences. Apologies if I have this wrong but it seems to be the gist of your argument. Your view may be that CO2 emissions are a lesser problem until the tide comes over the Thames barrier - but by then many others across the world will have been impacted terribly.
And MickF, although I know you heart's in the right place, if you don't care about air quality in London why do you expect anyone else to care about air quality (or even just how it smells) in Cornwall?
So you say, yet the rest of your post appears to justify the extra pollution from diesels on the grounds that their CO2 emissions are somewhat lower.
It is an argument which has been made over and over again.
It is completely bogus. Populating the streets with millions of diesel engines has demonstrably trashed roadside air quality but it has made practically zero difference in the fight against anthropogenic climate change. In fact you can make a pretty strong argument that diesel has just allowed the status quo to be maintianed, in particular the trend for ever larger vehicles, and ever longer commutes.
I'd like the structural problems of car dependency tackled as much as you. Any major political party which pledged to get serious about reducing car use would have my vote for sure.
What I don't understand is: If the number of vehicles is going to be reduced why wouldn't you want to start by getting rid of worst polluters?